BOARD OF EDUCATION BOARD AUDITORIUM

Portland Public Schools Blanchard Education Service Center

Study Session 501 North Dixon Street
June 11, 2012 Portland, Oregon 97227

Note: Those wishing to speak before the School Board should sign the citizen comment sheet prior to the start of
the regular meeting. No additional speakers will be accepted after the sign-in sheet is removed, but citizens are
welcome to sign up for the next meeting. While the School Board wants to hear from the public, comments must
be limited to three minutes. All citizens must abide by the Boards Rules of Conduct for Board meetings.

Citizen comment related to an action item on the agenda will be heard immediately following staff presentation on
that issue. Citizen comment on all other matters will be heard during the Remaining Citizen Comment time.

This meeting may be taped and televised by the media.



STUDY SESSION AGENDA

1. CITIZEN COMMENT 5:00 pm

2. BOARD SCHOLARSHIP RECIPIENT 5:20 pm

3. PRESENTATION: OREGON SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION 5:25 pm

4. DISCUSSION: CAPITAL BOND CRITERIA 5:40 pm

5. BREAK 6:40 pm

6. UPDATE: RACIAL EDUCATIONAL EQUITY POLICY 6:55 pm
IMPLEMENTATION

7. DISCUSION: OREGON ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 7:40 pm

8. BUSINESS AGENDA 8:10 pm

9. DISCUSSION: HIRING OF FORMER BOARD MEMBERS 8:15 pm

10. BOARD RETREAT PREPARATION AND ORGANIZATION 8:25 pm
OF MEETING STRUCTURE

11. ADJOURN 9:00 pm

The next Study Session of the Board will be held on June 18, 2012, at
5:00 pm in the Board Auditorium at the Blanchard Education Service
Center.

PORTLAND PUBLIC SCHOOLS
P.O. Box 3107/ Portland, Oregon 97208-3107
Telephone: (503) 916-3741' FAX: (503) 916-2724
SUPERINTENDENT'S RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD
AND STAFF REPORT
CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION BOND PLANNING: BOND AMOUNTAND CRITERIA FOR PROJECT SELECTION
Board Meeting Date: June 11, 2012 Executive Committee Lead: C.J. Sylvester, COO
Department: Office of School Modernization Staff Lead: Jim Owens, Director Capital Operations
I. ISSUE STATEMENT
In this report, staff has outlined some of the critical factors for consideration of
a possible Capital Construction Bond Measure for the November 2012 Ballot.
If the Board determines a November 2012 ballot measure is prudent, staff is
seeking Board guidance on the criteria for identifying the specific scope of
project work at the June 11, 2012, Board meeting. Staff will then develop a
proposal for consideration and deliberation on June 18 and 25. Additionally,'
staff is looking to schedule a public hearing prior to Board action on July 9,
2012.
This timetable is necessary to ensure due diligence prior to a possible August
board meeting where action can be taken on ballot measure language and an
explanatory statement for Board referral. It is also necessary to advise the
Tax Supervising and Conservation Commission no later than August 7 of PPS'
intent to refer a ballot measure for the November election.
This staff report provides options for Board consideration as regards any
proposed bond amount and criteria used for distinguishing the content of an
initial bond proposal.
II. BACKGROUND & COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
In May 2011, voters rejected PPS Ballot Measure 26-121 for capital
construction by a narrow margin of 668 votes. In May thru November of that
same year, the Superintendent and Board Members held a series of listening
sessions with both proponents and opponents of the ballot measure.
Recurrent themes from those conversations included:
Schools need upgrades.
Future bond proposals need more community buy-in.
Mixed opinion about why the bond failed including the state of the
economy, the necessity for greater public process and the need to
update the long-range facility plan.
:"" '
Bond Planning
Page 2 of6
Mixed opinion about how the bond proposal could have been focused
including too much focus on small enrollment schools and spreading
the bond monies "too thin". . .
"":-""
In December 2011 the Superintendent convened a 36ri1ember Long-Range
Facility Plan Advisory Committee to recommend a 10-year Long Range
Facility Plan (Plan) for possible consideration by the Superintendent and
Board of Education. The committee represented a broad cross-section of the
community including representatives of parents, students, PTA, unions,
business interests, design and construction professionals, and neighborhood
associations. The Committee held a total of 9 meetings as a whole and 5
subcommittee meetings between December 2011 and April 2012. The Board
received the draft Plan on May 14 and ultimately adopted it on May 29,2012.
Further, PPS staff provided a series of opportunities for community members
to engage between January and March of this year in Buildings & Learning
101 sessions held across the district. There were also topic specific, expert
panel discussions on seismic, universal access and historic issues.
Staff also' attended a variety of neighborhood and business association
meetings this winter and spring and talked about PPS milestone achievements
and the possibility of a future capital bond proposal. Many of these
discussions were extended beyond time allowed on their respective agendas
due to neighborhood interest in PPS and our programs.
The Superintendent convened a Bond Development Committee (BDC) of
about two (2) dozen people on May 9 and 16, 2012. This group again
represented a broad cross-section of the community and included a number of
Plan Committee members who were very committed to pursuing
implementation of Plan capital recommendations. At their first meeting,
different financial options based on a variety of criteria were presented. The
BDC reviewed and prioritized the options for further discussion.
On May 16, the BDC further discussed the refined options brought before
them in response to their previous meeting. Both small group and anonymous
individual voting was conducted. In-response to those actions, four (4) options
were presented for discussion purposes at three district-wide public
workshops on May 22, 23 and 24 held at Roosevelt, Madison and Lincoln High
Schools, respectively (see Attachment A). The BDC was then reconvened on
May 31 to review two (2) options resulting from the public workshops (see
Attachment B) and again discuss pros and cons of various financing and
criteria options and outcomes.
Bond Planning
Page 30f6
III. RELATED POLICIES/BEST PRACTICES
o Board Resolution No. 3986 (Oct. 13, 2008) Criteria to Determine Order
of Rebuilding and Renovation of PPS School Buildings to Create 21
st
Century Schools (see Attachment C).
o May 2012 PPS Long Range Facility Plan
IV. FISCAL ISSUES
When getting authorization from voters for a capital bond PPS asks for
approval of a dollar amount of total bond authorization, e.g., $450 million, and
also asks for approval of a maximum time limit under which debt may be
issued, e.g., 20 years. Voters do not approve a tax rate; that is calculated by
the tax assessor each year based upon the debt service requirements on any
bonds that have been issued.
In the table below we show a number of estimates of total bonds issued, and
corresponding tax rates. We are assuming that we'd issue some 20-year
bonds (and show the approximate rate to repay that debt) and would also
issue a series of 8 one-year bonds (and the estimated tax rate to repay that
debt).
So, for example, PPS could seek approval for $449 million of bonds with a
maximum term of 20 years, and our estimate is that a tax rate of $1.00/$1 ,000
of assessed value in the first eight years would repay this combined debt
structure, with $0.30/$1,000 being required for years 9 through 20.
Total Tax Rate
$/$1,000 Amount
Tax Assessed Value 8-year 20-year raised
$1.80 $1.70 $0.10 $640 million
$1.50 $1.40 $0.10 $539 million
$1.50 $1.35 $0.15 $558 million
$1.25 $0.95 $0.30 $532 million
$1.20 $1.10 $0.10 $438 million
$1.10 $0.80 $0.30 $482 million
$1.10 $0.75 $0.35 $501 million
$1.00 $0.90 $0.10 $372 million
$1.00 $0.85 $0.15 $391 million
$1.00 $0.80 $0.20 $411 million
$1.00 $0.75 $0.25 $430 million
$1.00 $0.70 $0.30 $449 million
$1.00 $0.50 $0.50 $525 million
$0.95 $0.75 $0.20 $394 million
Bond Planning
Page 4 of6
Following much discussion it seems clear the community is interested in
getting a lot of work accomplished at the lowest possible impact to their
property tax bill. For that reason, staff recommends the $1.001$1,000 tax
assessed value (AV) with .70 over eight (8) years and .30 over twenty (20)
years for a total amount of $449 million (see Attachment D). Maintaining a
"buck a thousand" tax rate means the average homeowner is anticipated to
pay less than $190 per year for PPS capital construction (less than
$16/month) .
$11$1000 AV is half of the May 2011 request of the voters and it recognizes
the economy is still not perceived as being back on track and, as a result, a
sense of financial insecurity remains for many people.
The Board should note that there has been interest on the long range facilities
committee and BDC to take on a more ambitious amount of work up front.
This can be accommodated either through more 20-year debt at $1.001$1,000
AV or by increasing the overall proposed tax rate. Any tax rate above the
buck a thousand means the average taxpayer will pay more than $200/year in
additional property tax. Other tax rates shown above are clearly options for
Board consideration and decision-making.
V. POSSIBLE BOND CRITERIA
Through the Long-Range Facility Planning process, Bond Development
Committee meetings and public input sessions certain criteria seem to
resonate with most people. Those criteria are:
Poor seismic rating
Poor (high) Facility Condition Index (FCI)
Known capital partnerships
VI. BOARD OPTIONS
Beyond those three (3) criteria are others that held interest for various
constituents, including:
o High percentage free &reduced meals (higher poverty schools)
Priority elevator needs
Priority roof replacement
o High student enrollment
Overcrowded conditions
Larger site size
Low capture rate
Geographic distribution
Bond Planning
Page 50f6
Applying various criteria results in different school selections for complete
rebuild or replacement (see Attachment E). Criteria determine the content of
the bond beyond the basics of major infrastructure repairs (see Attachment F).
minor educational facility improvements (see Attachment G), repayment of
debt (e.g. Rosa Parks acquisition) and program level costs (e.g. construction
contingency and escalation over 8 year time period).
VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
From the attachments to this staff report, the Board can see how various
criteria and financing options have affected possible bond scenarios as the
BOC and public have worked through these difficult and important issues.
There has been a majority emphasis from these groups, on including high
SChools il") any ballot measure. This interest stems from:'providing the most
robust, specialty learning environments where they can be utilized eventually.
by an entire cluster of students. Another consideration is to minimize
disruption to any individual student across their entire K-12 experience.
Staff is looking to the Board for specific guidance in order to develop
recommendations for Board action on July 9. The issues the Board should
consider on June 11 include:
1. Is November, 2012. the right time to go out for a capital construction
bond ballot measure?
2. Defining criteria for selection of schools for complete rebuild or
replacement. In 2008, the Board adopted criteria to determine order of
rebuilding PPS buildings (Attachment C). Since then the Long Range
Facility Plan Committee. the Bond Development Committee and the
general public have further discussed criteria (see section V and VI of
this staff report).
3. What size bond and related tax rate? Section IV of this staff report
provides different tax rate scenarios all over an eight (8) year program
timeline. The size of the bond ultimately determines the scope of the
work that can be accomplished.
VIII. TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION/EVALUATION
Board direction June 11 regarding timing for any ballot measure. criteria for
project selection and possible bond amount is critical to the continuation of this
decision-making process.
Bond Planning
Page 6 of6
Staff will develop an option or options that meet those criteria for Board review
and evaluation on June 18. It is anticipated the Board would then provide
more detailed direction following further Board discussion on that date.
A detailed authorizing resolution with specifics about ballot measure content
and financing would be brought forward for Board discussion on June 25,
2012, with a public hearing and Board adoption tentatively scheduled for July
9,2012.
concur with the recommendation to the Board.
~ 7 U ~ {P. Jo /2-
Date I
Attachments:
A. Bond Planning Public Meetings: Input Summary - May 22, 23 &24
B. Bond Criteria and Options - May 31,2012
C. Resolution 3986 Criteria to Determine Order of Rebuilding and Renovation of
PPS Buildings - October 13, 2008
D. Sustainable Financing Plan For 32 Year Program
E. Priority Consideration spreadsheet-Scenario Planning Tool
F. Physical Facility Improvements - $70M - May 22, 23 &24
G. Educational Facility Improvements - $30M - May 22,23 & 24
H. Building Deficiencies-Cost by System (Long Range Facility Plan)
Attachment A
Bond Planning Public Meetings: Input Summary
Portland Public Schools held public input sessions on potential school construction bond on May 22 (at
Roosevelt High School), May 23 (at Madison High School) and May 24 (at Lincoln High School). Meetings were
led and facilitated by community members who served on the Long Range Advisory Committee, which recently
updated PPS' long-range facilities plan.
Public engagement commitment
At the meetings, PPS consulted with the community on:
Priorities for school modernization as reflected in 4 potential bond scenarios.
Whether PPS should seek voter approval of a school construction bond in November.
Input summary
While comments were diverse and sometimes reflected substantial disagreement between participants there
were a number of recurrent themes.
1. Participants expressed support for a bond measure by substantial margins and identified November,
2012 as a good time to move forward.
2. Seismic issues were consistently identified as a concern. This was the single most common comment.
Improving safety conditions in general and seismic safety in particular was expressed as an individual
concern and as an important community priority.
3. Many participants identified facilities condition as an important consideration.
4. The cost of a bond measure was a concern. Most participants favored a smaller taxpayer cost in the
next bond proposal, particularly based on lingering concerns about the economy.
5. There is considerable support for an initial focus on high schools. Many participants favored investing
in high schools with the most frequent reason cited being the larger number of students at those
schools. The meeting at Lincoln High School had the highest density of these comments.
6. Several participants expressed the need for an inspiring vision in an initial bond. There was also interest
in a long-range plan to consolidate schools and in a resolution of community questions about K-8s and
Middle Schools.
Attachment B
G
.!\. ...... ,. S"":.JOO
__
.. 80
PPS bUildings are antiquated, inefficient and in need of repair. Since December 2011, school district leaders have worked with parents, teachers, business and
community leaders and building experts to develop a long-range improvement plan for PPS buildings, (the destination) and define school construction bond
options, (the first step). The options below now head to the Portland School Board for consideration.
Option A. 2 High Schools, 1 K-S,1 K-s $1.00 per $1000 of assessed value
The schools recommended for rebuilding are all:
High FCI (greater than .60)
Poor Seismic Rating
Priority Roof Replacement
Faubion = Capital partnership with Concordia
Other possible schools: Abernethy, Arleta, Beverly Cleary, Boise-Eliot,
Buckman, Cleveland, Hosford, Jackson, James John, Sabin
Option B 4 K-S, 3 K-s $1.00 per $1000 of assessed value
The schools recommended for rebuilding are all:
High FCI (greater than .60)
Poor Seismic Rating
One or both of the following: Priority Elevator Need/Priority Roof Replacement
Faubion = Capital partnership with Concordia
Other possible schools: Beverly Cleary, Boise-Eliot, Buckman, Grout, Hosford,
Jackson, Llewellyn, Sabin

rr
Educational Facility Improvements at 45-50 schools
Physical Facility Improvements at 50-54 schools
Full Modernization/Replacement
$26M
$61M
$235M

rr
Educational Facility Improvements at 45-50 schools
Physical Facility Improvements at 66-70 schools
Full Modernization/Replacement
$26M
$103M
$193M
2 High Schools 1 K-S 1 K-s 4K-S 3 K-s
Grant $92M Roosevelt $8SM Faubion $32M Ainsworth $26M Arleta $29M Beach $26M Faubion $32M Grout $28M Abernethy $26M Ainsworth $26M James John $26M
$ Program Costs* $128M $ Program Costs* $128M
Total Bond Program $4soM ITotal Bond Program $4soM
* Program Costs include: $45M debt repayment, $20M program contingency, $3M bond issuance, $45M construction inflation, $10M swing space &
transportation and $5M transportation improvement
Rev. Date: 5/30/2012
Attachment C
RESOLUTION No. 3986
Criteria to Determine the Order of Rebuilding and Renovation
of PPS School Buildings to Create 21 st Century Schools
RECITALS
A. The physical assessment of Portland Public Schools ("PPS") school facilities completed
in 2008 by Magellan Inc., a national consulting firm experienced in evaluating the
condition of school facilities produced comprehensive data about the condition of each
school building, and provided the basis for embarking on a school renovation and
rebuilding program. PPS's buildings are older than most comparable school districts,
many are at or near the end of their useful life, most of the major systems in many
buildings require replacement, and to continue to patch and repair is not cost effective.
B. Most of PPS's schools were designed in a different era, and the configuration of most
schools is not ideally suited to teaching and learning in the 21
st
century.
C. In May 2008, the Board of Education committed in principle to the rebuilding and
renovation of PPS's school buildings. The Board anticipates that the work will be carried
out in phases to create 21 st century learning environments in all of PPS's school facilities.
D. A broad, comprehensive set of guiding principles has emerged from the Facilities
Assessment process, beyond a ranking of buildings that need the greatest attention to
bring them into good repair. These guiding principles serve as a vision for creating
facilities that serve the community, building partnerships in how schools are used,
designing learning spaces that inspire and challenge students, investing in sustainable
practices and learning, making technology improvements, assuring that learning spaces
are flexible and adaptable for different programs and learning styles over time, engaging
the community in creating new learning environments, and tying development of schools
to community development.
E. The Facilities Assessment identified deficiencies in all school facilities. The list of
deficiencies can be addressed by short-term actions and by a long-term program of
rebuilding and renovation. PPS will endeavor to address the greatest short-term needs
to ensure that all schools meet "warm, safe, and dry" standards, and to make near-term
expenditures to address certain program requirements, such as needed improvements in
technology, capacity for physical education, and modifications to support more effective
implementation of the K-8 program in many of PPS's school facilities.
F. The criteria in this resolution serve as a framework for determining the order in which a
long-term school rebuilding and renovation program should proceed to meet the objective
of creating 21
st
century learning environments. In order to go beyond a "worst first"
approach in prioritizing this work, a broader range of factors needs to be considered that
will impact where work is performed.
G. The following criteria are the key factors to be considered in developing the priorities for
PPS's long-range rebuilding program:
1. Balance by Grade Level - Work needs to be performed across all levels of
schools (high school, middle school, K-8, elementary)
2. City Development Plans/Projects - As the City of Portland implements policies to
encourage family-friendly development around school sites and "20 minute
walkable neighborhoods" PPS will work with the City to plan strategically for
future growth. This City/PPS cooperative planning is expected to provide
opportunities to retain existing families as well as attract new families to PPS,
and may be a factor in placing a school higher on the list (for example, if a major
family housing development or increased housing density is proposed for an
area).
3. Enrollment - Enrollment is the number of students assigned to a building.
Schools can be over enrolled, under enrolled or at a manageable capacity. In
order to "right size" the school, PPS can apply several tools: analyzing transfer
patterns and making adjustments, evaluating boundary changes to balance
enrollment between adjacent schools, and increasing the physical capacity of the
school. The choice of how to address the issue of enrollment may impact the
order in which facilities work proceeds.
4. Enrollment Enhancement Opportunity - A new or fully modernized school may
be used as an opportunity to attract students back to a neighborhood with a low
"capture rate".
5. Environmental Considerations - There may be specific environmental
considerations that affect the order in which work is undertaken among all of our
schools. For example, further testing might reveal water intrusion of an
unacceptable and irreparable level at a school.
6. Facility Condition Index - The facility condition index (FCI) is an industry
standard for comparing building condition. The FCls developed by Magellan
included the actual physical condition of buildings and, in addition, included the
costs needed to bring each school up to the educational specification levels set
by a broad-based team of PPS instructional leaders. FCI does not include the
costs needed to create 21
st
century schools, only the costs needed to provide
upgrades within the current facility structure.
7. Fulfilling a Commitment - Honoring the commitments about facility improvements
that the school district has made in the past may be considered in determining
the order of work.
8. Geographic Distribution - School renovation work should be distributed across
the city to assure that there is equity in school improvements.
9. Historic Structure Deterioration - A few PPS schools have been formally
designated as historic structures. An increase in the rate of deterioration might
need a quick response that moves a facility ahead in the schedule.
10. Large Impact - The renovation or addition of a facility that is anticipated to have
a large impact on another school, an entire community or a major part of the city,
in addition to meeting other criteria, may be a determining factor in placing a
school higher on the list.
11. Partnership Opportunities - Partnerships can be financial, technical, joint use
and/or joint development and can take quite a while to nurture. The opportunity
for a partnership that has been developed and funded may mean that a particular
facility needs renovation or construction ahead of schedule or that a delay is
warranted while the partnership is formalized. Equity of access to quality
partnerships will be a key consideration.
12. Program Requirements - A new school district program imperative might require
a major facility renovation in order to offer that academic program in a quality
way. These can be handled under either short-term work or long-term work,
depending on the amount of renovation required. For example, deciding to offer
pre-K in every school has implications on building size. Again, equity of access
to programs and support for programs will be a key consideration.
13. Safety and Security - Assuring that all schools within the Portland system are
"warm, safe and dry" is always a priority. But various safety and security
considerations might impact the school district's renovation order because of the
volume or nature of concerns at a particular site that could only be addressed
with major rebuilding or renovation.
14. Temporary Space - Most school rebuilding and renovation work will require
students to be temporarily relocated while work is being done on their school.
For those schools, PPS will need to balance the work being performed at any
one time across the city in order to have temporary space (with limited travel time
for students) available to support the work being performed.
15. Unite a Divided Campus - Several PPS schools have significant portions of their
school enrollment in buildings that are not close to each other.
H. It is expected that a work plan for school rebuilding and renovations will clearly identify
how the criteria have been applied, explaining the rationale and mix of considerations
that were utilized in prioritizing the work. Consistent with that approach, it is expected
that the application of criteria to formulate a plan for each phase of work will need to be
re-examined to assure that the ranking generated in one phase is still appropriate for
successive phases as needs and conditions change.
I. The Finance, Audit and Operations Committee reviewed these criteria on October 3,
2008, and unanimously recommends adoption of this resolution by the Board of
Education.
RESOLUTIONS
1. The Board of Education (Board) adopts the criteria defined in this resolution, and directs
the Superintendent to use these criteria to develop a long range plan to renovate and
rebuild PPS school facilities, and to develop a proposal for the first phase of work to be
undertaken.
2. In applying these criteria, the Board directs that the Facilities Condition Index is initially
the primary criterion to rank schools selected for rebuilding and renovation; other criteria
are modifiers to this criterion. The Board also directs that renovations to accommodate
Program Requirements and to address Enrollment are criteria to be heavily weighted in
developing the ranking, along with any major Safety and Security improvements needed
in specific school facilities.
3. The Board expects that each phase of the plan will be designed with the understanding
that the combination of equity, expressed as Geographic Distribution, and practicality,
expressed as Temporary Space, will have significant impact on the order of schools
selected for a particular phase of work.
4. The Board does not intend to adopt these criteria to provide an arithmetic scoring formula
for determining the order of school rebuilding and renovation. Rather, the criteria are to
be used in relation to one another, to weigh and balance competing considerations in
developing a cost-effective, equitable and workable rebuilding and renovation plan. The
Board expects that each phase of the work will involve the interplay of dynamic factors,
and that careful analysis and judgment will be utilized in balancing these criteria.
5. The Board directs that the rebuild and renovation list developed with these criteria will be
used to inform the short-term plan to address immediate facility needs. The Board further
directs the Superintendent to prepare options for short-term action for Board
consideration.
C. Mincberg
10/13/08
SUSTAINABLE FINANCING PLAN FOR 32 YEAR PROGRAM
PORTLAND PUBLIC SCHOOLS POSSIBLE GO BOND SERIES SCENARIO
VOTERS DECIDE AT EACH STEP
DRAFT ILLUSTRATION - INCOMPLETE
23 May 2012
Attachment D
STAGGERED BOND AUTHORIZATIONS OVER 32 YEARS
Tax rate per $1,000 AV
Tax rate per $1,000 AV
BOND 1
$450m
$0.70 I $1000
QN03
$300m
$0.70 I $1000
$0.30 I $1000

Program year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
Calendar year '12 '13 '14 '15 '16 '17 '18 '19 '20 '21 '22 '23 '24 '25 '26 '27 '28 '29 '30 '31 '32 '33 '34 '35 '36 '37 '38 '39 '40 '41 '42 '43 '44
Ballot
* * * * *
DRAFT DOCUMENT;
MAY CONTAIN INCOMPLETE OR UNCONFIRMED DATA.
Bond Development Committee
Scenario Planning Tool
May31.2012
PRIORITY CONSIDERATIONS
SORTED BY "SUM OF HIGHLIGHTED CELLS"
Attachment E
School
HIGH SCHOOLS
Grades
Original
Year Built
Bldg SF
Graduation
Rate
Site
Acreage
Free &
Reduced
Price Meals
>65%
2012 DRAFT
Seismic
Ratings
=Poor
Priority
Elevator
Needs
=YES
Priority
Roof
Replacment
=YES
FC)
> 0.60
11/12 Student
Enrollment
HS =1400
K51K8IMS =550
Capture
Rate
11/12
Student
Capacity
11/12
Student
Over-
Crowding
> 25
Partnership
Potential"
=X
Sum of
Highlighted
Cells
Roosevelt 9 - 12
Cleveland 9 - 12
Grant 9-12
Jefferson 9 - 12
Franklin 9 - 12
Lincoln 9 - 12
Benson 9 - 12
Madison 9 - 12
Wilson 9 -12
K5 I K8 I MIDDLE SCHOOLS
James John K - 5
1921
1928
1923
1909
1915
1951
1916
1955
1954
1929
228,535
257,757
274,489
321,354
218,574
200,046
391,790
287,937
265,990
63,725
46%
73%
86%
56%
74%
90%
80%
57%
76%
17.1
11.3
10.2
14.0
18.3
11.0
8.8
20.0
22.8
3.3
75%
28%
23%
76%
56%
15%
63%
68%
24%
86%
Poor
Poor
Poor
Poor
Poor
Fair
Poor
Fair
Fair
Poor
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
0.71
0.63
0.66
0.62
0.58
0.45
0.52
0.61
0.54
0.84
748
548
889
1,387
402
52%
71%
82%
22%**
59%
86%
51%
87%
61% 591
x
x
x
x
x
5
4
4
4
3
3
2
2
6
Roosevelt
Cleveland
Grant
Jefferson
Franklin
Lincoln
Benson
Madison
Wilson
James John
Ainsworth
Arleta
Beach
Boise Eliot
Faubion
Grout
Laurelhurst
Ockley Green
Alameda
Buckman
Cesar Chavez
Creative Science I
Creston
Hosford
Lane
Lent
Sitton
Vernon
Winterhaven
Woodlawn
K-5
K-5
K-8
PK-8
PK-6
PK-8
K-5
K-8
K-8
K-5
K-5
K-8
K-8
K-8
6-8
6-8
K-5
PK-8
6-8
K-8
K-5
K-5
K-8
PK- 8
K-8
PK-8
1925
1912
1929
1928
1926
1950
1927
1923
1925
1921
1921
1928
1955
1948
1950
1925
1952
1925
1927
1949
1928
1949
1925
1931
1930
1926
47,526
57,724
72,308
71,299
69,097
51,881
73,085
60,518
74,876
64,748
77,600
78,097
50,246
79,510
76,143
86,407
78,751
101,138
94,866
79,282
52,159
56,719
57,599
3.9
3.8
4.2
5.2
4.0
7.8
2.3
2.9
5.2
3.7
4.9
6.8
7.8
8.6
7.3
6.7
9.2
4.9
9.1
10.8
3.3
7.0
3.1
3.7
4.9
5.1
14%
7%
66%
56%
79%
73%
70%
15%
77%
11%
40%
90%
39%
69%
88%
46%
80%
93'70
86%
88%
21%
85%
28%
71%
9%
81%
Poor
Poor
Poor
Poor
Poor
Good
Poor
Fair
Fair
Poor
Poor
Fair
Poor
Poor
Fair
Poor
Good
Fair
Poor
Good
Poor
Good
Fair
Fair
Fair
Poor
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
0.88
0.81
0.77
0.71
0.64
0.61
0.68
0.72
0.69
0.58
0.62
0.73
0.69
0.53
0.66
0.70
0.46
0.74
0.58
0.42
0.77
0.68
0.68
0.64
0.71
0.57
455
568
423
582
389
435
359
680
270
782
490
455
357
379
360
534
570
292
440
577
545
333
608
504
347
478
73%
94%
59%
59%
61%
60%
56%
79%
27%
85%
85%
59%
47%
49%
55%
77%
44%
71%
78%
77%
58%
76%
47%
41%
387
672
581
638
553
400
522
638
712
763
558
622
543
670
702
675
871
740
780
770
502
570
451
654
335
610
68
35
42
19
(167)
(186)
43
157
12
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Ainsworth
Arleta
Beach
Boise Eliot
Faubion
Grout
Laurelhurst
Green
Alameda
Buckman
Cesar Chavez
Creative Science I Clar
Creston
Hosford
King
Lane
Lent
Sitton
Sunnyside
Vernon
Winterhaven
Woodlawn
1of3
DRAFT DOCUMENT;
MAY CONTAIN INCOMPLETE OR UNCONFIRMED DATA.
Bond Development Committee
Scenario Planning Tool
May31,2012
PRIORITY CONSIDERATIONS
SORTED BY "SUM OF HIGHLIGHTED CELLS"
616/2012
Free & 2012 DRAFT Priority Priority 11/12
11/12
Sum of
Original Graduation Site 11/12 Student Capture Student Partnership
School Grades Bldg SF Reduced Seismic Elevator Roof Fel Student Highlighted
Year Built Rate Acreage
Price Meals Ratings Needs Replacment
Enrollment Rate
Capacity
Over- Potential *
Cells
Crowding
Bridger
Chapman
Duniway
Fernwood - Beverly
Harrison Park
Jackson
Marysville
Rigler
Rose City
Sabin
Scott
Sellwood
Vestal
Chief Joseph
Glencoe
Hayhurst
Lee
Maplewood
MLC
Mt. Tabor
Peninsula
Rosa Parks
Roseway Heights
Stephenson
-East
Whitman
Woodmere
Astor
Beaumont
Bridlemile
da Vinci
Gray
Holladay Annex
Hollyrood - Beverly
Lewis
Richmond
K-8
K-5
K-5
2-8
K-8
6-8
K-8
K-5
Close
PK- 8
K-8
6-8
K-8
PK-5
K-5
K-8
K-8
K-8
K-5
K-12
6-8
K-8
K-5
K-8
K-5
6
K-5
K-5
K-8
6-8
K-5
6-8
6-8
Pioneer
K-1
K-5
PK-5
K-8
1951
1923
1926
1911
1949
1966
1921
1931
1912
1928
1949
1914
1929
1949
1923
1954
1932
1953
1948
1914
1952
1952
2006
1923
1965
1933
1954
1954
1949
1926
1958
1928
1952
o
1958
1952
1908
1939
45,043
63,460
68,054
89,846
110,796
212,534
52,817
67,727
59,899
67,221
69,594
87,295
75,245
44,804
61,042
50,356
68,424
62,395
40,063
69,458
79,465
61,902
68,188
103,169
39,712
25,501
57,845
53,399
54,442
94,300
56,246
88,457
74,931
29,979
15,581
47,686
80,753
36,522
5.8
4.9
5.6
4.3
5.4
36.4
5.2
8.8
3.7
3.6
5.7
4.8
4.7
3.0
5.8
7.4
3.5
9.1
4.3
3.8
7.4
6.7
2.7
8.5
8.8
6.2
7.3
5.5
4.0
5.7
7.3
5.9
13.2
2.1
0.9
5.5
3.8
5.8
66%
31%
15%
15%
85%
27%
88%
85%
0%
41%
89%
34%
79%
46%
29%
24%
41%
78%
27%
24%
37%
80%
95%
39%
12%
0%
88%
84%
56%
32%
16%
24%
26%
0%
0%
40%
14%
26%
Good
Fair
Poor
Poor
Good
Poor
Poor
Fair
Poor
Poor
Fair
Fair
Fair
Poor
Fair
Poor
Fair
Good
Good
Poor
Fair
Fair
Good
Fair
Good
Fair
Good
Good
Good
Poor
Fair
Fair
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Fair
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
0.64
0.62
0.71
0.66
0.44
0.63
0.53
0.70
0.82
0.61
0.45
0.75
0.71
0.43
0.74
0.46
0.57
0.54
0.61
0.58
0.51
0.37
0.01
0.55
0.63
0.64
0.49
0.44
0.45
0.56
0.51
0.59
0.35
0.48
0.35
0.55
0.38
0.39
397
563
425
419
753
540
363
528
o
392
522
488
420
485
454
422
485
458
335
593
358
407
589
335
360
398
492
482
470
462
422
255
363
663
276
48%
84%
84%
68%
70%
87%
56%
69%
53%
63%
75%
53%
62%
62%
74%
68%
69%
78%
65%
53%
67%
68%
92%
71%
65%
69%
65%
88%
73%
72%
72%
396
616
521
603
609
652
659
479
498
565
579
577
623
444
781
674
575
875
496
630
614
580
685
597
762
502
220
465
755
331
(53)
(96)
(184)
(105)
o
(286)
o
o
35
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Chapman
Duniway
Fernwood - Beverly CIE
Harrison Park
Jackson
Rigler
Rose City
Sabin
Scott
Sellwood
Vestal
Chief Joseph
Glencoe
Lee
MLC
Mt. Tabor
Peninsula
Rosa Parks
Roseway Heights
West Svlvan - East
Whitman
Woodmere
Astor
Beaumont
Bridlemile
da Vinci
Holladay Annex
Hollyrood - Beverly Cle
Lewis
Richmond
Skyline
2 of 3
DRAFT DOCUMENT;
MAYCONTAIN INCOMPLETE OR UNCONFIRMED DATA.
Bond Development Committee
Scenario Planning Tool
May 31,2012
PRIORITY CONSIDERATIONS
SORTED BY "SUM OF HIGHLIGHTED CELLS"
616/2012
Free & 2012 DRAFT Priority Priority 11/12
11/12
Sum of
Original Graduation Site 11/12 Student Capture Student Partnership
School Grades
Year Built
Bldg SF
Rate Acreage
Reduced Seismic Elevator Roof FCI
Enrollment Rate
Student
Over- Potentia'"
Highlighted
Price Meals Ratings Needs Replacment Capacity
Crowding
Cells
WesfSylvan 7-8 1954 108,832 13.6 13% Good
-
0.31 848 82% 1,322 (474) 1 West Sylvan
Atkinson K-5 1952 55,572 3.1 45% Good
-
0.47 450 70% 581 (131) 0 Atkinson
Capitol Hill K-5 1917 51,969 4.4 25% Fair
-
0.42 372 79% 479 (107) 0 Capitol Hill
Forest Park K-5 1998 52,260 6.6 4% Good
-
0.03 491 94% 498 (7) 0 Forest Park
Markham K-5 1951 80,117 9.2 55% Good
-
0.50 384 67% 722 (338) 0 Markham
Rieke K-5 1961 42,274 12.6 15% Good
-
0.34 419 84% 495 (76) 0 Rieke
Woodstock K-5 1910 66,716 5.0 32% Fair 0.48 491 61% 612 (121) 0 Woodstock
ADDITIONAL FACILITIES
Kellogg Close 1913 98,798 6.2 0% Poor YES 0.64 0 0 3 Kellogg
Columbia Admin 1937 40,035 9.7 0% Fair
-
YES 0.67 0 0 2 Columbia
Holladay Center Pioneer 1972 29,979 2.5 81% Fair
- -
0.68 0 2 Holladay Center
Humboldt PK-9 1959 43,869 3.6 81% Good 0.45 220 43% 465 (245) X 2 Humboldt
Tubman 6 -12 1954 87,509 3.1 0% Fair YES 0.41 206 721 (515) X 2 Tubman
SESC Admin 0 375,000 10.2 0% 0.28 0 0 X 1 SESC
Clarendon Close 1970 40,707 4.3 0% Good 0.53 0 0 X 1 Clarendon
CSC Close 0 112,256 0.0 0% 0.89 0 0 1 CSC
Green Thmb Transition 0 9,394 5.5 0%
-
0.80 0 0 1 Green Thmb
Kenton Lease 1913 52,880 4.0 0% Fair 0.45 0 0 X 1 Kenton
Marshall Admin 1960 252,483 52.05 24.2 0% Fair 0.64 0 0 1 Marshall
Smith Close 1958 38,149 10.5 0% Good YES 0.51 0 0 1 Smith
Terwilliger Close 1916 26,395 3.3 0% Fair YES 0.40 0 0 1 Terwilliger
Youngson Pioneer 1955 35,145 5.4 83% Fair
-
0.43 0 1 Youngson
Applegate PK 1954 23,167 1.4 0% Good
- -
0.38 0 0 0 Applegate
Collins View Close 0 0.0 0% 0.00 0 0 0 Collins View
Edwards Lease 1961 20,610 1.1 0% Good
-
0.44 0 0 0 Edwards
Foster Close 1963 11,935 3.6 0%
- -
0.55 0 0 0 Foster
Meek Alliance 1953 33,659 5.6 62% Fair
- -
0.37 0 0 0 Meek
Ramona PK 0 0.0 0% 0.00 0 0 Ramona
Rice Admin 1955 16,136 2.0 0% Good 0.53 0 0 0 Rice
Sacajawea PK 1952 19,631 3.6 0% Good 0.49 0 0 Sacajawea
Wilcox Admin 1959 20.786 2.8 0% Good 0.33 0 0 0 Wilcox
33 32 31 44 46 17 7 37
* Site lies within an existing Urban Renewal Area, New Market Tax Credit Eligibility Area, or other potential capital funding partner has been i d e n t i f i e ~
** Jefferson enrollment consists of both neighborhood enrollment and focus option elective students
3 of 3
Physical Facility Improvements,... S70M
PORTLAND PUBLIC SCHOOLS
$12,600,000 Seismic strengthening
Attachment F
r I -
i I ! l (( r I
19 - 23 Schools
$ 22,100,000 Targeted roof replacements
that include seismic
strengthening
$ 18,100,000 Targeted roof replacements
9 - 11 Schools
8 - 12 Schools
$ 17,200,000 Accessibility improvements
30 - 33 Schools
$ 70,000,000
Educational Facility Improvements "J $30M
PORTLAND PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Attachment G
i I
I . i \' I 1
$5,000,000 Grade 6-8 science lab classroom 40 - 45 Schools
improvements*
$ 20,000,000 High School technology
improvements
9 Schools
$ 5,000,000
$ 30,000,000
Elementary and Middle School 8 -21 Schools
technology improvements
* Additional sinks and electrical outlets to support current curriculum
PORTLAND PUBLIC SCHOOLS
------
v - The Assessment
Building Deficiencies - Cost by System
Site work
Hazard Abatement
Equipment & Furnishings
Communications & Security
Electrical
Fire Protection
HVAC
Plumbing
Elevators and lifts
Interiors
Roofing
Exterior Envelope
Structure (includes seismic)
o 100 200
Cost in millions
300 400
Attachment H
462
500